From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30423 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2002 21:42:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30415 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 21:42:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 21:42:49 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16tbU2-0007zK-00; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:42:58 -0500 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 13:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Multilibs and gdb.asm Message-ID: <20020405164258.A30688@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <15534.5336.562102.896601@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15534.5336.562102.896601@localhost.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00184.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:19:20PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > In gdb.asm/asm-source.exp, the testsuite passes multilib options to > the assembler according to the compiler syntax. > Obviously this doesn't work, as already noted by Nick Clifton in: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-01/msg00282.html > > A solution wasn't reached at the time. > > I found it useful to just bail out of the test if some multilibs were > detected. At least it reduced the noise in the testsuite results. > > Is this too drastic? I've got a silly suggestion. Is there any reason not to assemble by invoking the compiler, for this test? Let it do all the multilib footwork. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer